Lauren Ivey ParadigmLast changed 8/6 7:42P EDT
You probably know me better as my maiden name, Lauren Donnenfeld.
2013- Present Co-Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School.
2012-2013-I was one of Vanderbilt's debate graduate assistants.
2007-2011-I debated for Emory University for four years. I started as a novice in college.
Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
1. I really love debate. I don't like when people do things to make debate less pleasant for others. I'm likely to dock your speaker points for treating your opponent disrespectfully, excessive cursing, being obnoxious in cross-ex, stealing prep time, etc. I believe debate is an educational activity and it should be something I am proud to show to other teachers, parents, administrators, etc. Therefore, you should not engage in any offensive strategies or any acts of self-harm in a round that I am in the back of. Be a good human to yourself and to others.
2. I enjoy judging all kinds of debate at all levels. The best debaters are intelligent, fast, clear, and strategically use mistakes from their opponent to their advantage. Above all, it is always rewarding to judge people who have put effort into their rounds and are working hard.
3. Flowing is really important. I've noticed an increase in debaters answering arguments in the speech doc (in some cases, an entire off-case position) that were not read in the debate. You should not be organizing your speech doc in a way that is deliberately confusing to the other team. I will be very unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs arguments, anything that happened outside of the round, or disclosure issues.
4. Tech > truth. I read evidence in most debates to help decide key questions in the round.
5. I do not take prep for flashing or emailing. I trust that when you say "stop prep" you are attaching the document and not doing anything else. If this is taking more than a reasonable amount of time, I will re start prep.
6. CPs/ DAs- I am a good judge for this type of debate. I tend to prefer counterplans that are based in the literature as opposed to a cheating process CP, but I've voted on them before. I prefer CPs with a solvency advocate. I enjoy the politix DA as I follow politics and teach AP Gov unless your scenario is utter trash.
7. Case- I tend to think most neg teams undercover the case debate in the 1nc.
8. Ks- If you are reading a more common Kritik such as cap, security, fem IR, settler colonialism, etc. I will be fine. If you are reading high theory, race-based arguments, or less common Kritiks, you need to explain this more since I am less familiar with these arguments or consider reading something else.
9. Ts- I am an ok judge for topicality, but I often tend to find myself with a lot of unresolved questions at the end of T debates. Try hard to close the loop. What does debate look like under your vision of the topic? What does debate look like under your opponent's vision of the topic? Why is your vision preferable? These are all questions that should be answered for me by the conclusion of the 2ar.
10. CX- Asking "did you read this" ? or "what card did you stop at" ? definitely counts as CX time. Tag teaming seems to have gotten kind of excessive, especially in high school debate.
11. Non-Traditional Debate: I tend to think that the aff should defend a topical plan but- keep reading- that is debatable and I frequently vote for teams that don't defend a plan. However, I have concerns about negative ground against planless affs and tend to lean neg in these debates and often vote for framework.
12. College Debaters- I am less familiar with the college lit because I primarily a high school coach. If you're going to use an acronym I probably don't know, please say it the first time before abbreviating it.
If you have any questions, feel free to email me at the email address above. Good luck!